Jump to content

Jez

Recommended Posts

There really should be a limit as to how many players a team can have out on loan.

 

Chelsea have more players loaned out than they do in their first team squad. It's not right. Just another enormous benefit to the rich teams.

 

Can be solved easily - every player that isn't from your own academy who has been loaned out should count in the 25 man squad. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

There really should be a limit as to how many players a team can have out on loan.

 

Chelsea have more players loaned out than they do in their first team squad. It's not right. Just another enormous benefit to the rich teams.

 

Can be solved easily - every player that isn't from your own academy who has been loaned out should count in the 25 man squad. 

 

But what about players you want to offload like Sylla and Tonev?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

There really should be a limit as to how many players a team can have out on loan.

 

Chelsea have more players loaned out than they do in their first team squad. It's not right. Just another enormous benefit to the rich teams.

 

Can be solved easily - every player that isn't from your own academy who has been loaned out should count in the 25 man squad. 

 

But what about players you want to offload like Sylla and Tonev?

 

 

Tough titties. Offload them. If you can't then play them. If you don't want to then buy their contracts out. Either way you might think twice before you buy the next one. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

There really should be a limit as to how many players a team can have out on loan.

 

Chelsea have more players loaned out than they do in their first team squad. It's not right. Just another enormous benefit to the rich teams.

 

Can be solved easily - every player that isn't from your own academy who has been loaned out should count in the 25 man squad. 

 

Ooh, interesting.  I like the sound of that.  I'd have to have a think about the workings of it, but certainly it sounds like it would be an elegant way to make a balls of Chelsea <- which is probably why it wouldn't happen.

 

Y'see we're all assuming here that the FA/PL are interested in reducing the extent to which the rich clubs stockpile talent, but everything we're seeing suggests they're not only happy with it, but they're keen to incentivise it further.  Grading the academies and allowing the plunder of 'lesser'(sic) academies only enables it further aswell.  The system is rotten.  Long live the system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

There really should be a limit as to how many players a team can have out on loan.

 

Chelsea have more players loaned out than they do in their first team squad. It's not right. Just another enormous benefit to the rich teams.

 

Can be solved easily - every player that isn't from your own academy who has been loaned out should count in the 25 man squad. 

 

But what about players you want to offload like Sylla and Tonev?

 

 

Tough titties. Offload them. If you can't then play them. If you don't want to then buy their contracts out. Either way you might think twice before you buy the next one. 

 

So basically don't buy any players in case they turn out to be bad because you will be stuck with them

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

There really should be a limit as to how many players a team can have out on loan.

 

Chelsea have more players loaned out than they do in their first team squad. It's not right. Just another enormous benefit to the rich teams.

 

Can be solved easily - every player that isn't from your own academy who has been loaned out should count in the 25 man squad. 

 

Ooh, interesting.  I like the sound of that.  I'd have to have a think about the workings of it, but certainly it sounds like it would be an elegant way to make a balls of Chelsea <- which is probably why it wouldn't happen.

 

Y'see we're all assuming here that the FA/PL are interested in reducing the extent to which the rich clubs stockpile talent, but everything we're seeing suggests they're not only happy with it, but they're keen to incentivise it further.  Grading the academies and allowing the plunder of 'lesser'(sic) academies only enables it further aswell.  The system is rotten.  Long live the system.

 

 

I'm trying to figure out whether, from a financial perspective, it's better to have a few super powerful teams and the rest of the league effectively meaningless, or whether it's better to have more strong teams.

 

I'm assuming this is going to be basically based on non-UK markets, mainly Asia and the US.

 

I know Australia isn't quite the same, but purely on empirical evidence, there seems to be a much greater general following of the Premier League now than there was before the Man City buy out broke up the old Sky 4 and opened up the trophy race a bit.

 

Is bringing the rich clubs back to the pack likely to generate more or less money for the PL? I guess it's pretty important that England has a couple of teams that are genuinely competitive in the Champions League, which might make strengthening the top teams important.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Otamendi reminds me of a pokemon for some reason.

I have always had the same thought regarding Skrtel, reminds me of Squirtle Turtle and I can't read his name without thinking it. It amuses me anyway :D
gC9Cc.jpg

tumblr_inline_nfz0puhzk21r2z1p4.jpg

I think this "Footballers who sound like Pokemon" thing has some legs.

Ghost what have we done... Not sure the world is ready for this kind of power....

Edited by AVFCforever1991
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...
Â